Game
Theory and the Iran Nuclear Deal: Was this President Obama's Guide?

Game Theory and
the Iran Nuclear Agreement (Formiche, Italy)

"In the
case of nuclear weapons the optimal solution would be not to produce or use
them in the first place, but fear that the other might violate any deal not to
do so push both to violate it. Therefore, one must strike first. This advice
came from the greatest minds of the 1950s, but luckily Harry Truman wouldn't
listen. … In 1984, scholar Robert Axelrod reformulated Game Theory's fundamentals.
… Under certain conditions, trust can spring up between rational egotists - even
in the absence of a 'sovereign' obliging them to reach an agreement. Obama has
said that the document is based not on trust, but on rigorous and stringent
verification. That is undoutedly true, but I'll bet that he and his staff,
in deciding to sign, gave more than a little thought to modern game theory."

Not being an expert on international relations, I am in no
position to express a definitive judgment on the full implications of the
agreement signed in Vienna between Iran and the United States (with Europe,
China and Russia). However, I find the assessments of Nicola Pedde, director of the Institute for Global Studies, who
spoke to Formiche,
and columnist Franco Venturini, who wrote in today's Corrieredella Sera, to
be convincing and balanced.

Reading them I was reminded of two names: John von
Neumann and Oskar
Morgenstern. It was they, one a mathematician and the other an economist,
who in 1944 developed Game Theory
- the science of strategic decision-making. In 1949, game theorists, after the
explosion in Siberia of the first Soviet atomic bomb, suggested a strategy of
preventive attack. Initially even Bertrand Russell
agreed, a man who subsequently became, along with Albert Einstein, one of the
icons of pacifism.

In 1950 the "prisoner's dilemma"
was postulated, which describes a situation in which two individuals, who would
be well-advised to cooperate, choose not to do so because of a rational and mutual
distrust - and with disastrous consequences for both. In the case of nuclear
weapons, for example, the optimal solution would be not to produce or use them
in the first place, but fear that the other might violate any deal not to do so
push both to violate it. Therefore, one must strike first. This advice came
from the greatest minds of the period, but luckily [President] Harry Truman wouldn't
listen.

As it was for Israel, Iran will have America's Nuclear Blessing! (Al Madina, Saudi Arabia)

Game Theory, the development of which "beautiful minds"
like (recently deceased) John Nash,
became, as a consequence, synonymous with legitimizing nuclear war. In
1984 a brilliant young scholar, Robert Axelrod, in a book that immediately captured
the Anglo-Saxon cultural and scientific world's attention - TheEvolution of Cooperation -
reformulated Game Theory's fundamentals, illustrating under what conditions
cooperation can emerge, is advantageous and can continue to develop.
Cooperation may involve disarmament talks as well as business dealings, reaching
into the sphere of politics, and so on.

Posted By Worldmeets.US

It was then discovered that in fact, under certain
conditions, trust can spring up between rational egotists - even in the
absence of a "sovereign" obliging them to reach an agreement (a
problem raised by philosopher Thomas Hobbes more than
three centuries ago). Barack Obama has said that the document signed by
Washington and Teheran in the Austrian capital is based not on trust, but on
rigorous and stringent verification. That is undoutedly true, but I'll bet
that he and his staff, in deciding to sign, gave more than a little thought to
modern game theory.